Uh, they already know there are active flood regions on Mars that flow annually, and they know there are regions that recieve flowing water other than
this one volcano.

Mars has a LOT of water, it has clouds, and ice clouds just as earth, the problem is ENTIRELY the atmoshpere and geology of the planet.

There is very little oxygen and there is very little if ANY geologic activity, which causes massive amounts of CO2 to be trapped in limestone rock.

The lack of volcanic activity prevents formation of H2O and O2. Mars was, is and always will be a dead world.

In fact, there never had to be massive amounts of flowing water ever, iron rusts just as well in acid (such as the sulfuric acid that our own planet
was bathed in before things cooled off), which means that Mars could have frozen up as a dead world, before water even began to truly form.

So in conclusion what could have caused Earth to be so different from Mars? Well two things, one Earth is believed now to have a Uranium "battery"
in the center of the core, and Mars may not, two Earth most likely was hit by a Mars sized planet(oid) early in its life.

This could have caused one thing, and if it is indeed the genesis of our moon it caused one other thing.

The first possibilty is the collision caused a fracturing of our crust, allowing geothermic activity to continue for as long as it has, rather than a
solid crust forming and thickening, as it has on Mars (Mars's crust is about 1000 miles thick, the Earth's is only 5).

Two and if this genesis theory is correct, this is a definate reason, the moon provides a gravitational tide on the Earth.

This is most obvious in the tides of the oceans, but less obvious but equally if not more important, is the tidal effects our Moon causes upon our
VAST mantle.

This mantle is a puddy substance, much like plastic, the constant and rhythmic stress it recieves by the orbiting moon may be one of many reasons why
our planet is regularly geologic, and thus viable for life. Without geologic activity no life can live, as you can see by Mars.

So why is Venus volcanic? It has no moon, and the "uranium battery theory" is just that, a theory. So Venus is actually a prime example of just
what a massive meteoric impact can do to a planet's gelogic system.

Venus has been volcanically active in its current state for only about 500 million years. This yeilds a possibility that what started the insane
volcanic activity could have been a meteorite impacting the planet, and causing a massive spark in geothermal activities.

So with these in mind, one possibility about Mars, is that it was born as any rocky planet is, in a volcanic fury, but unlike Earth nothing shattered
its crust, this is why massive volcanoes are to be found. Because the crust did not shift and therefore the same magma pockets fuled the same region.
This lack of shifting could be a good reason why Mars cooled faster than the other worlds.

Also no moons, without moons there is no tidal forces on Mars, no tidal forces means no gravitationally generated energy seen on Io, and Earth.

If Mars didn't make it passed its primordial stage, no life ever could have formed. So we do have to go there and see if rudamentary life formed,
this will give us clues to just how long Mars remained viable before it "froze".

So finally where is all its atmosphere that would have been created by the volcanic activity?

Several places, one it is in the Iron, two it is in the rock, and three it is in space.

Mars is void of a Magnetic field, this allows it to be bombarded by radiation, this shows that there is absolutely no sizable geologic activity, and
this is why there is no substantial atmosphere.

Without the protection from radiation, radiation has been allowed to blast the atmosphere from the planet. What smaller atmosphere it would have had
due to density and the amount of gravity of the planet, has been dwindled tremendously due to constant exposure to radiation.

Mars is no big mystery. It has a few surprises still. But as far as things go, we have found all possibilities about Mars.

It's just which possibility is the one that did occur, is the question we must now answer.

However one thing is certain, Mars will never be an enjoyable haven for an over crowded Earth, we may set up colonies but they will take massive
support from Earth and will never grow into anything more than towns, barely able to support themselves.

Venus should be our goal, but not being able to actually land there for a VERY long time, turns humanities eye.

I'm talking about something that provides tidal energy, not freaking phobos and deimos.

You want to be technical Mars used to have thousands of moons (all about the size of its 2 last ones) and they all smacked into the planet over the
ages. Only phobos and deimos are left and they won't be there forever either.

Do point out these holes so I can address them Mr. MD.

kegs I don't see why I catch such flak when I "talk down to someone" or "say this guy is an idiot or such". And I should have to put up with it
from you.

If you don't have any technical information to contribute to this post then you shouldn't post here. This goes for the mods too, if you want people
to obey these "rules" then you shouldn't just let some do it and others be brandished for it.

Any level of aggression is aggression, and someone might throw a pea at another, and recieve a boulder back. Does that mean you should only punish
the person who throws the boulder, and let the pea thrower go about throwing his peas everywhere?

Sounds pretty hypocritical.

Back to the subject, MD, you have shown nothing. I have no holes in my post, they just are not all fully accepted. Neither is the Universe, plenty
of scientists aren't so sure that your chair is real. Does that mean someone who says it is is wrong?

You want to be technical Mars used to have thousands of moons (all about the size of its 2 last ones) and they all smacked into the planet over the
ages. Only phobos and deimos are left and they won't be there forever either. Posted by Hammerite

Actually, the strongest working theories for the presence of Phobos and Deimos are either that they are gravitational "captures" of wandering
asteroids (the easiest to explain), or the more catastrophic explaination, that explains Mars current extremely tenuous atmosphere.

It has been estimated that about 1 billion years ago, Mars held an atmosphere approximately 1/3 to 1/2 the pressure of earth (it currently is
approximately 1/100 earth normal pressure). Between 1 and 2 billion years in the past, Mars suffered a severe impact, likely from a comet, of
something over 100 km in diameter, possibly larger. This impact would have had to be at an oblique (greater than 45 degree) angle. The shockwave from
the impact would have ripped a large fraction of the atmosphere off of mars and into space. Phobos and/or Deimos could well be chunks of martian crust
propelled into orbit by the impact, or alternatively, could be remanants of the orginal impactor *skipping* off the surface on impact.

As MidnightDStroyer mentioned, you do have more than a few holes in your theories... I will discuss more tomorrow..

Uh, they already know there are active flood regions on Mars that flow annually, and they know there are regions that recieve flowing water other
than this one volcano. Posted by Hammerite

Correction: They suspect but have no proof. (Granted, this new evidence may in fact be the proof they are seeking). Also, granted, there is
evidence of massive exchange in water ice between poles depending on the summer/winter cycle, however, this exchange has been proven to be in the form
of water vapor, and has been mapped by tracing large plumes of water vapor in the atmosphere.

There is very little oxygen and there is very little if ANY geologic activity, which causes massive amounts of CO2 to be trapped in limestone rock.
Posted by Hammerite

Couple problems with this: first, there is not a great deal of active seismic/volcanic activity, at least that we have observed in the past 30-40
years... however, there is ample evidence of rather extreme volcanism in the past. Mons Olympus is the largest known volcano in the solar system... it
got there somehow!

As to the CO2 and carbonate, I agree, if you assume large amounts of water and CO2, you could logically assume that large amounts of CACO3 would be
formed. (Synthesis between C02 and water being the only way form CACO3, unless you assume/prove biological activity, which we have been unable to do,
aside from Cydonia...) However, as mentioned in this link, CACO3 has a specific IR signature, that has been searched for, and has not been found. That
would indicate an absense or very low amount of CACO3 on the planet.

Now granted, this link comes from NASA, and most everyone knows my opinion on NASA at the moment, but it was the best link I could find regarding this
issue.

In fact, there never had to be massive amounts of flowing water ever, iron rusts just as well in acid (such as the sulfuric acid that our own
planet was bathed in before things cooled off), which means that Mars could have frozen up as a dead world, before water even began to truly form.
Posted by Hammerite

There has been no evidence of sulfuric acid, or any other chemically active agent of that type found on mars... considering that we DO know that mars
at one time in the past had a considerably thicker atmosphere, it is MUCH more likely that it held at least some amounts of O2, which would have led
to widespread oxidation.

Well two things, one Earth is believed now to have a Uranium "battery" in the center of the core, and Mars may not Posted by Hammerite

I have not read this theory, sounds interesting. However, Earth is known to have a highly compressed iron/nickle core, and evidence is now being
presented that mars has one to, albeit much smaller.

The first possibilty is the collision caused a fracturing of our crust, allowing geothermic activity to continue for as long as it has, rather than
a solid crust forming and thickening, Posted by Hammerite

The continental drift theory has NOTHING to do with a massive impact. It has been well proven that continental landmasses act as a "blanket" to trap
heat concentrations rising from the mantel, focusing magmatism, which then causes faulting to form. This is the reason that both Pangea and Gondwana
broke apart.

Mars's crust is about 1000 miles thick, the Earth's is only 5). Posted by Hammerite

Mars crustal thickness is pure conjecture, and due to release of recent data, that number has been revised downward considerably (although granted it
appears to still be thicker than earths). Oceanic crust can be as thin as 5 miles, thickening to 20-30miles or so. Continental crust often adds
at least another 75-100 miles depth.

This mantle is a puddy substance, much like plastic, the constant and rhythmic stress it recieves by the orbiting moon may be one of many reasons
why our planet is regularly geologic Posted by Hammerite

Hmmm... Puddy substance only if you consider that the mantel is largely made up of things like amphibole, orthoclase, and other similar granitic
rocks... Also, yes, we do get a good deal of lunar tidal effects, but we recieve far more tidal effect from the sun...

So why is Venus volcanic? It has no moon, and the "uranium battery theory" is just that, a theory. So Venus is actually a prime example of just
what a massive meteoric impact can do to a planet's gelogic system. Posted by Hammerite

Absolutely 100% false. We have no evidence of a meteor impact on Venus, and certainly no correlation with volcanic activity there. To begin with,
Venus has a very dense atmosphere, which would make it VERY difficult for a meteor to survive reentry to surface impact. Indeed, Venus is probably the
best *defended* planet against asteroid impact. Yes, there is evidence of a good deal of volcanism on Venus, but it is totally driven by internal
forces and tidal forces with the sun (much more pronounced due to its closer location to the sun).

Also no moons, without moons there is no tidal forces on Mars, no tidal forces means no gravitationally
generated energy seen on Io, and Earth Posted by hammerite

Again, you are forgetting tidal influences of the sun... granted, they are less influential the further out you go, and the gradient of tidal effects
increases geometrically the closer you get to the sun. Io has high degree of activity as its primary takes the place of the sun.

So finally where is all its atmosphere that would have been created by the volcanic activity? Posted by Hammerite

read my previous post

You still have some holes, but I have spent too much time on this already...

Originally posted by RavenStar
I posted something about a week ago on Galactic Canabalism, very interesting!!

I've seen something like this on Discovery Channel a few years ago...So I'm going to be missing a few details in this description.

This has to do with astrophysicists trying to prove the existance of black holes in space...The main question being that, if a black hole aborbs
nearly everything that it encounters, including light, how are we to know that they exist?

Well, one probable answer came in the form of a star (I've forgotten the name of it) that they *could* see that displayed very eccentric attributes.
This star seemed to follow a very small orbit around some celestial body that they couldn't see, in a pattern similar to a binary-star system. The
corona & other solar emissions seemed to also trail off into the same direction of whatever it was that the star was in orbit with...

Apparently, with more investigation, they were able to determine that this star got caught in the gravitational field of a black hole & became locked
in an ever-degrading mutual orbit with it...A slow dance of death that would eventually draw off all of the star's fuel while it circles with the
black hole, consuming the essences of the star like a vampire feeds on the life's blood until the star finally crosses the event horizon & dies.

Seemingly some scientists in NASA have discovered a black hole close to our galaxy and it is edging closer to a star that is meant to go Supernova in
a few million years, there freaked because of the grav forces could length or shorten the time that nature takes its course!

For boot the "no moons//sulfuic acid//tektonics" well hell most my stuff is theories that I like, and well the acid one is mine. Iron in O2 slowly
rusts, and granted it has had a LONG time to rust, but still. As for water on mars? Doesn't matter, there NEEDS to be that oxygen or still no rust,
if there is no oxygen freely in the water then the Iron doesn't rust, though when there is oxygen freely in the water it will rust much more quickly
than under other conditions.

In acids it will oxidize much more quickly, so I figured that maybe that could be a better possibility than large amounts of water on mars.

And my 1000 miles thick crust WAS an old figure...heh...thanks for the refresher I never bothered to look up newer info. Big mistake.

If you're interested in that Uranium Battery core thing, then I saw it in a "Discover Magazine" most likely year 2002.

I never said though that there was no volcanic activity. I'm just left wondering why is there no tektonic plate movement as we see on earth. A
thicker crust could be a good reason. As well as a meteorite impact, nothing is certain.

I must disagree though with your reasons for Mars's low atmosphere. Granted the solar winds theory is no more solid, however Mars has had very
little world wide geologic activity.

Had an impact occured that would have such force, it would have "shook" the planet up quite a lot, even the relatively small impact that killed off
the dinosaurs has been found on our very "alive" planet.

Something THAT strong would be very readibly visable.

But...I'll give the theory you present good merit though, because I just thought, all these "canals" on mars.

I've never harbored much interest in these canals, and never bothered to see if anyone who has studied them really thinks they HAVE to have been made
by water.

Could these "Canals" be the representation of a former cataclysm by impact? *strokes chin* eh...whatever.

As for Io, most if not all of its activity comes from its close proximity to Jupiter, and the other 4 large moons, and less so than with the Sun,
unless I'm horribly mistaken, or hearing only short answers to its volcanism, maybe they just over look the sun's true impact.

However if the sun's tidal force were strong enough to do that to Io, then it would HAVE to apply to Mars as well as Mercury (Which has no vulcanic
activity).

Venus's vulcanism is just a vague theory, I can't remember WHERE I have heard the 500 million year figure, but it wasn't an uncredible source.
Like-wise though it also didn't provide any explainations to how they came up with such a figure...

Something THAT strong would be very readibly visable Posted by Hammerite

That is true, and many consider this to be the main undoing for this theory. However, consider that such an impact would also likely fracture the
crust to the point that free flowing magma to come to the surface, likely inundating all low lying areas around the impact site. If that were true,
we wouldnt be looking for a crater but a large flat smooth area. Of course, with the thicker atmosphere gone, more meteors would survive to the
surface, causing heaviery cratering....

However, I don't think, I'm not sure if other's think, that there would be much magma to do this, the only volcanic regions very visible on Mars
are in the Tharsis region suggesting it was maybe localized there?

Perhaps then MAYBE, the Tharsis region is the area that was struck by such an impact?

Now Mars DOES have large flat smooth areas, about as flat as you are going to get for a gravel strewn wend blown planet.

But as for cratering? It is less so than the Moon and the moon has many flat places that exhibit massive impacts. Hmm the most supported theory of
the moon IS that Mares were formed generally from a meteorite impact right? I'm not sure about that come to think of it.

Either way though, it would be interesting to look at a map of all the canals on mars, and see if it would coincide with fault lines or such, that
could have been magnified by a deep impact. I know the Canals is a long shot, but to say they were formed by water is premature, the Moon has canals
just like mars, and some of these canals have been captured in photos surely you've seen them?

These "canals" on the moon flow through the Mares and I don't remember the explaination given that I had read, so it's worth looking into.

I now hypothesis, that the Canals of Mars could have been created by this large meteor you speak of that knocked off a good amount of its atmosphere
*goes off to look into this*

all of you have very valid points and i'm trying to get round all the info that you've laid down!

Have one question though?

If mars had volcanic activity in its past, would that make the planet shrink as all the lava is coming to the surface?
Or am i just very confused?

Heard it one day from my high school Geo teacher that if enough lava is released from the magma chamber, it makes the earth crust constrict and shrink
with all the weight and the planet will shrink in size!!!

He was about 60 years old at the time so his memory probably wasn't that good!

Get back in contact and do any of you guys, apart from dragonrider, work in NASA or something?

I don't think Mars has ANY geologic activity anymore, and I found a website by the guy that believes that the Earth's Core is a Nuclear reactor and
not just a big ball of Iron.

And reading it I must say I pretty much agree. He makes a convincing correlation to the Nuclear activity of the Gas Giants to the activity of the
Earth. Like-wise he points out that Uranus, a planet of almost no radioactive signature, has almost no atmospheric activity, unlike the rest of its
very much alive siblings.

So why is it Mercury and Mars and Pluto are dead worlds? Mercury has no seen traits of vulcanism, nor does Mars have any seen traits of current
vulcanism. So obviously the sun itself is not responsible for ANY vulcanism. Does the size of the Earth really make THAT much of a difference, or is
there another reason our planet and Venus is so volcanic. And this website gives some convincing points.

He's also a bit of a downer since he says the Earth has about 100 years to 1 billion years of life left, before our "nuclear core" dies out, and
our magnetic field fades away.

All this is starkingly parallel to Mars. If Nuclear fission is responsible for Earth's activity, than if it were to lose that, as Mars may have,
then there'd be no more activity, and no more magnetic field, just as Mars.

Hmm...our planet can't shrink unless it gets more dense I should think

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.